1. Title, director and release year? China Revs Up, directed by Chris Schmidt, released in 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film argues that China is at a vital decision point that will take place during the next couple of years, playing a large role in affecting the rest of the world. The recent trend to live the American lifestyle cannot be supported or sustained if all of China (and the rest of the world) lived the same way.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Chinas obsession with coal is growing and it is projected that currently 2 coal plants are being built each day. The country’s current plants run on about 40% efficiency. However, a more pressing problem is that the amount of cars entering China cannot be supported by their current infrastructure. This perpetuates the already critical issue of the country’s smog and polluted air. China either imports their cars or has partnerships with foreign manufactures, but many of these cars are only up to Euro 2 standards which are outdated pollution standards and fuel inefficient.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought China’s radical methodology has been proven very successful , although uncomfortable to change. Their population control standards might be seen inhumane, but it is good to see that the country is willing to take action. The move to smash the communist structure was revolutionary and put China on the map as one of the financial leaders. It is projected that China needs 15 million new jobs a year to meet with their growing country, which is simply an astonishing statistic and puts in perspective the growth of China’s economy.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Across China, the government has begun to close factories that are emitting too many pollutants. Although this might seem like a step in the right direction, I think it is just nothing more than an update of the extremely outdated factory system. Chinese corporations have already admitted that they will try to do their best to chose cleaner methods of energy, but like so many other global corporations, have had minimal action towards moving away from coal.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film makes me want to seek out the partnerships between corporations and the military during times of war and conflict. It is proven that wars tend to generate wealth for the economy and during World War II, Coca-Cola designed Fanta orange for the Nazis to help keep themselves financially stable. Companies, such as IBM, produced punch card machines used by the Nazis to determine a plan of action for prisoners of either death, work, or special treatment.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film can address all age groups because all of the products shown typically have a large consumer base and are used by most Americans. Specifically, the film will likely have a great impact on how people view cosmetic products and body sprays because the film shows the harmful chemicals found in these products
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film seems to give China slack because they are currently in their Industrial Revolution and it would be hypocritical to blame them for environmental problems when the United States and other developed countries have done the same in the past. However, we are not ignorant on the environmental costs of these outdated technologies. If anything, now is the time to implement proven electric cars to a country that is demanding small compact cars. Instead, the film suggests hydrogen cars as a solution in the future. I feel a simple point of intervention they missed was to simply update the UK carbon emission standards in new vehicles rather than implementing outdated dirty engines.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value
The film could have done a better job of offering a feasible solution to the problems China is facing with coal and transportation. The film did a great job of explaining how and why this country has entered their industrialization period, yet the only solution offered was a plausible hydrogen car that is clearly not ready to be implemented. It is unlikely that this will work in a place like China where in the past, they have notoriously opted for the cheapest option which sacrifices efficiency and safety.
China Revs Up, directed by Chris Schmidt, released in 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film argues that China is at a vital decision point that will take place during the next couple of years, playing a large role in affecting the rest of the world. The recent trend to live the American lifestyle cannot be supported or sustained if all of China (and the rest of the world) lived the same way.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Chinas obsession with coal is growing and it is projected that currently 2 coal plants are being built each day. The country’s current plants run on about 40% efficiency. However, a more pressing problem is that the amount of cars entering China cannot be supported by their current infrastructure. This perpetuates the already critical issue of the country’s smog and polluted air. China either imports their cars or has partnerships with foreign manufactures, but many of these cars are only up to Euro 2 standards which are outdated pollution standards and fuel inefficient.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought China’s radical methodology has been proven very successful , although uncomfortable to change. Their population control standards might be seen inhumane, but it is good to see that the country is willing to take action. The move to smash the communist structure was revolutionary and put China on the map as one of the financial leaders. It is projected that China needs 15 million new jobs a year to meet with their growing country, which is simply an astonishing statistic and puts in perspective the growth of China’s economy.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Across China, the government has begun to close factories that are emitting too many pollutants. Although this might seem like a step in the right direction, I think it is just nothing more than an update of the extremely outdated factory system. Chinese corporations have already admitted that they will try to do their best to chose cleaner methods of energy, but like so many other global corporations, have had minimal action towards moving away from coal.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film makes me want to seek out the partnerships between corporations and the military during times of war and conflict. It is proven that wars tend to generate wealth for the economy and during World War II, Coca-Cola designed Fanta orange for the Nazis to help keep themselves financially stable. Companies, such as IBM, produced punch card machines used by the Nazis to determine a plan of action for prisoners of either death, work, or special treatment.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film can address all age groups because all of the products shown typically have a large consumer base and are used by most Americans. Specifically, the film will likely have a great impact on how people view cosmetic products and body sprays because the film shows the harmful chemicals found in these products
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film seems to give China slack because they are currently in their Industrial Revolution and it would be hypocritical to blame them for environmental problems when the United States and other developed countries have done the same in the past. However, we are not ignorant on the environmental costs of these outdated technologies. If anything, now is the time to implement proven electric cars to a country that is demanding small compact cars. Instead, the film suggests hydrogen cars as a solution in the future. I feel a simple point of intervention they missed was to simply update the UK carbon emission standards in new vehicles rather than implementing outdated dirty engines.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value
The film could have done a better job of offering a feasible solution to the problems China is facing with coal and transportation. The film did a great job of explaining how and why this country has entered their industrialization period, yet the only solution offered was a plausible hydrogen car that is clearly not ready to be implemented. It is unlikely that this will work in a place like China where in the past, they have notoriously opted for the cheapest option which sacrifices efficiency and safety.